This is the Place, for Cougar Fans!
https://www.cougarcorner.com/
One senior analyst told investigators: "Manipulation, watering down, hedging, or preventing from running all together, those are the sort of practices I am talking about."
Another stated: "I wouldn't say falsified, but definitely change and influence."
Their names were withheld.
Like I said, it depends on your definition of the word "to be."SpiffCoug wrote:
Another stated: "definitely change[d]"
So we agree. Intelligence was being changed to fit the narrative. The intel community was feeding the administration fake intel because it was requested.jvquarterback wrote:Like I said, it depends on your definition of the word "to be."SpiffCoug wrote:
Another stated: "definitely change[d]"
What grinds my gears is how the Left and even some GOPers are now claiming Trump can't call for an investigation of voter fraud by the DOJ because Trump has already declared it exists, so any investigation would be politically tainted.....as if the same thing didn't just happen in December with Obama claiming the election was hacked by Russia which helped Trump, and then calling for an Intelligence investigation less than 2 weeks later to find out if he was right....SpiffCoug wrote:So we agree. Intelligence was being changed to fit the narrative. The intel community was feeding the administration fake intel because it was requested.jvquarterback wrote:Like I said, it depends on your definition of the word "to be."SpiffCoug wrote:
Another stated: "definitely change[d]"
Which makes sense considering how hard the admin worked to promote fake news that supported their narratives and story telling proclivities.
That's just how the military/CIA/FBI/NSA operates. It isn't like this is a new thing. Higher ups brought about yellow cake Uranium and various other lies while Bush was president.SpiffCoug wrote:So we agree. Intelligence was being changed to fit the narrative. The intel community was feeding the administration fake intel because it was requested.jvquarterback wrote:Like I said, it depends on your definition of the word "to be."SpiffCoug wrote:
Another stated: "definitely change[d]"
but the science is settled.snoscythe wrote:You can add NOAA to your list of falsifiers-for-political-expediency (in case you missed "Climategate" the first time around).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -data.html